The remaining objections may be taken together. They are of the same kind as those recently employed against the enfranchisement of the working-class. They are briefly: That the interests of women are not neglected, for they are represented by their male connections; that women are ignorant of polities; that they would be exposed to intimidation at home, and to violence at the polling-booths; and lastly, that women do not want votes. It is not allowed that women are sufficiently represented by their male connections. Such indirect influence isnot considered, in other cases, to be a reason for withholding the suffrage. Rich men have a great indirect influence, but they have also votes. It is an old argument that operatives were represented by their employers; but that argument never convinced the operatives, and it has now ceased to affect the legis lature. Why, then, should a Z*0110213 representation, which is repudiated by every class of men, be considered sufficient for women? On the contrary, if women had votes their interests would be better attended to, because no member can disregard with impunity any important section of his constituents. It would be the policy of states-• men to devise and carry out measures for their benefit, But, it is said women are ignorant of politics. This objection has lost much of its weight, now that household suffrage has been established. Educated women are surely not behind many of the new voters in political knowledge. Still, women, in get sal, know less of politics than men. They are constantly told that polities form no part of their business, and their opinions, like those of non-electors, have little direct and palpa ble influence on affairs. Political knowledge generally follows political power. "\\' omen have not the stimulus that acts on men; they have not the knowledge that their opin ions form part of the legislative power.
There is little reason to fear that the possession of a vote would expose women to coercion and improper influence. The law has already defied a more serious danger. It permits women, and by special arrangement, even married women, to hold property, and it trusts its ability to protect them from the importunities of relations. if women can defend their property from greedy relatives, they will be no less able to give inde pendent votes. The objection that women would be exposed to violence at the porn ng booths; is not formidable. If such were the fact it would be no argument against female suffrage; it would be an argument against polling-booths. Should the police, however, be unable to protect female voters, there is the easy resource of voting-papers, already in use in the elections in the English universities.
The last objection is, that women do not want votes. A large number petitioned the commons in favor of extending the franchise to women that possessed a household qualification; those petitioners represent a very much larger number, who are kept back by the various social cheeks that prevent women taking part in political agitation. Nor can them be any doubt that a proposal that makes way with men simply on the ground of justice, will find still more favor with women, since their interest is ranged on the -same side.
The claim of women to the suffrage is not without support from practical considera tions. History teaches that women must have votes in order to protect their interests; men. through all the vicissitudes of history. have shown a constant preference of their •own interests. In the words of lord 3lacaulay: "If there be a word of truth in history, women have been always, and still are, over the greater part of the globe, humble coin panions, playthings, captives, menials, beasts of burden. Except in a few happy and highly civilized communities, they are strictly in a state of personal slavery. Even in those countries where they are best treated, the laws are generally unfavorable to them, with respect to almost all the points in which they are the most deeply interested."
In this country, women suffer from serious grievances. They are excluded from the universities, and no provision is made to give them the high education that men value. In consequence of this, men enjoy almost a monopoly of educated labor. Most of the charitable endowments for education in England were destined by the founders for girls as well as boys; but they have been generally appropriated to boys. Christ church hospital was intended for boys and girls; it educates 1100 boys and 26 girls. Women also are excluded from the professions and the higher branches of industry. l'he situation of a governess is almost the only one open to educated women; from other occupations they are shut out, partly by rules,. partly by neglected education.
The law is unfair to women, especially the law of marriage. Marriage is constituted by free consent, and is supposed to imply the approval of both parties. sow, it would be a hard bargain, where one of the parties was offered all the terms of it in the lump, and was therefore obliged to take everything or reject the whole; yet all the incidents of marriage, all the terms of the contract, are fixed by the law, and the law is made by men. In constituting the relation of marriage—a relation of even greater importance to women than to men—women have no voice, they have only a barren and impractica ble veto. 'l'he result is familiar to every lawyer. By the law of England, the custody of a woman's children, after seven years of age, belongs exclusively to her husband; after they reach that age, she has no right even to see them. The common law strips a woman of her property, and leaves her fortune at the mercy of her husband; the lids band also can seize his wife's earnings, unless she is protected by a judicial separation, or by an order from a magistrate. A married woman cannot enter Into contracts. In practice, this bad law is avoided by settlements made before marriage; but this protec tion involves expense, and is in a great measure confined to the rich. More recent legislation is as unfair as the older law. In 1857 the divorce court was established, and it was enacted that, for adultery on the part of a wife; the husband could obtain a divorce; but for the adultery of a husband. a wife was not allowed a divorce. In addition to. adultery, the husband must be guilty of cruelty or desertion. This inequality goes to the root of the marriage-contract: it means that, in consideration of maintenance, a. woman gives her person to her husband, and therefore, unless she is ill-used or abandoned, she gets in substance what she bargained for. The law is severe on offenses against. property; it is comparatively lenient in punishing brutal assaults by husbands on wives;, garroters are flogged, but not wife-beaters. Finally, in the words of lord Brougham, . " There must be a total reconstruction of the law, before women can have justice.' 2. The Industrial Rights of Womem.—These embrace admissibility to all offices, occu pations, and professions; also admission to the universities, or some adequate provision for the education of women so as to fit them for high posts. This raises the question of the prener sphere of women. The prevailing ideas point to marriage as the true, if not the scne end of a woman's existence; but this theory is inadequate to meet our social difficulties. Many women are unmarried. What is to be done with them? To hinder them from doing the best they Can for themselves, would be a manifest injustice; there fore, in the interests of single women, all occupations should be open. But the claims on behalf of women do not stop there. It is denied that men have any right to exclude women from active life, and so drive them into marriage as their only livelihood. On grounds of justice, the right of women to enter into industry is conceived as almost too• clear for argument.